Questions about aging technology

[cnr1guy]

I've been thinking about this for a while and am curious to get some other people's opinions.

The Liquidmetal "technology" is coming up on being 10 years old in a year or so. Those frames are arguably some of the best Head has ever created when they came out compared with the Titanium and Flexpoint lines. I'm curious at what point does technologies like Liquidmetal become outdated and old especially now that the frames are being produced in China in mass and not in Austria as they once were. And when does it make sense to buy "newer technology" in racquets?

Do the Liquidmetals that are available for sale play as well as the Youtek line or IG line (when it comes out). Are the frames being made with the same quality as they once were or when compared to the new lines that racquet companies are pushing?

I guess ultimately what I'm asking is (1) does it make sense to continue buying racquets like the Liquidmetals when they are now 2 or 3 generations old and is the quality still there (2) are these new "old" generations of frames even close to what they were made like when they originally came out when it comes to feel, playability, etc. (3) When does it make sense to invest in newer technologies that could help your average club players game?

Obviously pros play what they are used to no matter how old the frames are (even though they do use "pro stock" of their older generation racquets).

Any thoughts? :-?

 

[MAXXply]

Never for one moment in my racket-buying life have I stopped to consider the high-tech claims of the latest and greatest frames. Those things are pure marketing B.S IMO. Weight, balance, swingweight and stiffness is all I consider.

 

[Maroon_Tenniskid]

The only Technology so far that I can tell, is the Youtek d3o. I can really feel the racket stiffen up for hard shots, and soften for the soft touch shots. It doesn't have a HUGE effect, but I know it's not 100% marketing BS and I think it's pretty cool haha.

 

[cnr1guy]

Never for one moment in my racket-buying life have I stopped to consider the high-tech claims of the latest and greatest frames. Those things are pure marketing B.S IMO. Weight, balance, swingweight and stiffness is all I consider.

But all racquets have some type of technology. Its impossible to have racquet that does not boast some feature that makes it better.

 

[OldButGame]

I think what Maxx is saying,...and I would really agree,...is that it doesnt pay to get overly caught up in the 'new technology' end of things,...and that more than anything its simply a 'reason to sell a new line of racquets'.
The things like Maxx suggested, weight, balance, swingweight, stiffness, etc are more important IMO,....
I bought a LM Radical last Summer, being fully aware that it was 'supposedly dated technology'. (I had familiarlity with liquidmetal tech. form my LM Rave 2004). The LM Radical is a great racquet (IMO). So much for 'dated technology'.

In asking if it makes sense to buy these, I think the primary consideration might be,.."how long will it still be available"?...If Its dated,...it may not be around when You want to replace it.:-|

 

[tennisnoob3]

But all racquets have some type of technology. Its impossible to have racquet that does not boast some feature that makes it better.

fischer's zero tolerance was not a technology in the racquet, just stiff qc.

 

[MAXXply]

I think what Maxx is saying,...and I would really agree,...is that it doesnt pay to get overly caught up in the 'new technology' end of things,...and that more than anything its simply a 'reason to sell a new line of racquets'.

Yes, exactly.

 

[user92626]

Never for one moment in my racket-buying life have I stopped to consider the high-tech claims of the latest and greatest frames. Those things are pure marketing B.S IMO. Weight, balance, swingweight and stiffness is all I consider.

That's because you' have a short sight. If you set your sight a little longer, say, 30 years, you can clearly see that you can't and won't use a racket that was made 30 years ago, right? On the same line, it's safe to say that most rackets today, as perfectly good as they are now, will be dirt cheap junks 30 years from now. So, what exactly changes?

 

[MAXXply]

That's because you' have a short sight. If you set your sight a little longer, say, 30 years, you can clearly see that you can't and won't use a racket that was made 30 years ago, right? On the same line, it's safe to say that most rackets today, as perfectly good as they are now, will be dirt cheap junks 30 years from now. So, what exactly changes?

Sure thing, of course I would see a need to update from an ageing heavy midsize to a modern-day mid-plus. What I mean is I don't feel compelled to rush out and spend $$$ on the latest Innegra update to a Speed Pro, for example, when my YouTek version is satisfactory. No-one can tell me the incremental addition of some fatuous technology means my YouTek is instantly redundant.

 

[mctennis]

Sometimes technology is used by less skilled players to make up what they do not possess as a player. The less gimmics the better the player. IMHO.

 

[Tar Heel Tennis]

That's because you' have a short sight. If you set your sight a little longer, say, 30 years, you can clearly see that you can't and won't use a racket that was made 30 years ago, right? On the same line, it's safe to say that most rackets today, as perfectly good as they are now, will be dirt cheap junks 30 years from now. So, what exactly changes?

PS85s will be 30 years old in just a couple of years. do you think that everyone that still uses this racket today will stop using it in a few years because the PS85 will be dirt cheap junks (whatever that means :-?)?

 

[user92626]

Sure thing, of course I would see a need to update from an ageing heavy midsize to a modern-day mid-plus. What I mean is I don't feel compelled to rush out and spend $$$ on the latest Innegra update to a Speed Pro, for example, when my YouTek version is satisfactory. No-one can tell me the incremental addition of some fatuous technology means my YouTek is instantly redundant.

Well, money might be a factor as well, whether you realize it or not. If it only costs $20 instead of $200, I don't mind getting and enjoying the latest technology with the Innegra, even if it's just a new PJ innovation. (Come to think of it, why do most things from the past look freaking ugly - that's gotta affect your play?)

 

[user92626]

PS85s will be 30 years old in just a couple of years. do you think that everyone that still uses this racket today will stop using it in a few years because the PS85 will be dirt cheap junks (whatever that means :-?)?

So, it's either everyone will stop using the racket once the clock strikes past 30 years for it or my point will be completely invalid?

 

[OldButGame]

The OP is directly comparing Liquidmetal to Youtek and now the IG series,....I think his 'window of reference' is a little smaller than a 60 year continuum,...:neutral:

 

[rich s]

That's because you' have a short sight. If you set your sight a little longer, say, 30 years, you can clearly see that you can't and won't use a racket that was made 30 years ago, right? On the same line, it's safe to say that most rackets today, as perfectly good as they are now, will be dirt cheap junks 30 years from now. So, what exactly changes?

you are talking evolution vs revolution.....

Take HEAD for example..... Twin Tube, Titanium, intelligence, Liquid Metal, Flexpoint, Microgel, etc..... are evolutionary changes of a specific material technology.... they might contribute minutely to the increased performance of the racquet but don't put any one leaps and bounds ahead of another

Wood, Aluminum, Graphite... are examples of revolutionary changes in racquet making materials/technology..... with each change there was a profound impact on performance and the sport.....

30 years ago (1981) the Prince Graphite (110 series) was a relative new-comer to tennis...it is still in production today and can still hold its own on the court.....

the marketing machines of the big name racquet makers may want you to believe that the evolutionary changes are worth the money, but IMO the POG has stood the test of time.... until the next revolution.

 

[prjacobs]

Sorry.... I though you were referring to me....

 

[BobFL]

Well, money might be a factor as well, whether you realize it or not. If it only costs $20 instead of $200, I don't mind getting and enjoying the latest technology with the Innegra, even if it's just a new PJ innovation. (Come to think of it, why do most things from the past look freaking ugly - that's gotta affect your play?)

Brilliant!!

Imo, it is very simple: they simply need new 'technology', paint-job, and marketing name in order to sell. With racquets it is not quite obvious so they have to distinguish new products. It is much easier when you have products like cars where you can use the same name for 20 years...

 

[d wayne]

I just bought 2 LM Radicals and gave some thought to the technology issue before switching. Was using the MG Instinct before(for 3 years) and like the feel of Head racquets & the dense string pattern.
I tried the YT Radical- while I am skeptical of most new technology claims, it really did seem to change flex depending on the shot I was hitting. Frankly, I did not like it- I prefer a consistent feel on my shots.
For me,the LM is a better fit than the newer technology- it gives me just what I am looking for- a solid, well balanced racquet that is heavy enough to generate(& withstand) pace and light enough to allow good racquet head speed. Not to mention an unbeatable price.
As a previous poster mentioned, what really matters is the weight, balance & flex being right for you. The technology should not be the driving force

 

[cnr1guy]

I just bought 2 LM Radicals and gave some thought to the technology issue before switching. Was using the MG Instinct before(for 3 years) and like the feel of Head racquets & the dense string pattern.
I tried the YT Radical- while I am skeptical of most new technology claims, it really did seem to change flex depending on the shot I was hitting. Frankly, I did not like it- I prefer a consistent feel on my shots.
For me,the LM is a better fit than the newer technology- it gives me just what I am looking for- a solid, well balanced racquet that is heavy enough to generate(& withstand) pace and light enough to allow good racquet head speed. Not to mention an unbeatable price.
As a previous poster mentioned, what really matters is the weight, balance & flex being right for you. The technology should not be the driving force

OK, so - this begs my other question that hasn't yet been addressed. So is the LM Radical of today as good as the LM Radical when it was first released. Are all of the very same materials being put into the frame now there were put into it circa 2003? When it was first created, it was manufactured in Austria now it's being produced in China. So is the LM Radical of today comparable to the LM Radical of yesteryear?

 

[OldButGame]

OK, so - this begs my other question that hasn't yet been addressed. So is the LM Radical of today as good as the LM Radical when it was first released. Are all of the very same materials being put into the frame now there were put into it circa 2003? When it was first created, it was manufactured in Austria now it's being produced in China. So is the LM Radical of today comparable to the LM Radical of yesteryear?

I would assume yes,..but I could be wrong. Heres another consideration. I read these threads a lot as a lot of You do, and have read a lot about the LM Radical etc. From what ive seen, (and i could be wrong here) ..but it seems theres more of a 'broad liking' for the LM Radical than a lot of the Youteks. Ive read a lot of complaints of the Youtek being 'too stiff'. Also The LM Radical was one of TW's top rated racquets based on their review scores. Kinda puts another spin on older tecnology vs new.:-|

 

[TheLambsheadrep]

So it's known that current pros use older technology rackets (Old Prestiges, PT630, etc.) and not the new technology rackets that are on the market (Youtek, BLX, etc.). It's thought that Agassi used the Radical Trisys 260 his entire career after he picked it up. Are up-and-coming pros using an older technology or actually using the newest technology in their rackets? There's a lot of skepticism with recent technology, so what will happen in the future? Like if Youtek happens to be legit, will young (middle/high school) players growing up with Youtek rackets that become pros still be using Youtek when they go pro (like older pros)?

 

[TheLambsheadrep]

anyone have 2 cents?

 

[pshulam]

will young (middle/high school) players growing up with Youtek rackets that become pros still be using Youtek when they go pro (like older pros)?

I would say most likely if they were sponsored by Head.

 

[tom4ny]

i think that new technologies lag with the pros because they tend to stick with what works for years. as they age they switch more but mostly i look to see what the up and coming juniors are using to see how modern technologies are assimilating.

the general trend seems to be toward lighter and stiffer. of course each manufacturer will try to differentiate with their unique composite; its the overall adoption of 98/100" frames that are 11+ oz and stiffer that seems to dominate.

i could be wrong

 

[TheLambsheadrep]

so the trend of pros using their "high school" rackets stays constant through the years? then how can most people bash new technology if that's what pros will really be using eventually?

 

[tennisnoob3]

so the trend of pros using their "high school" rackets stays constant through the years? then how can most people bash new technology if that's what pros will really be using eventually?

i've wondered that myself, and its a great question for the "pro's racquet and gear" section. i'm not sure if pro-stock racquets actually have the technology in them. there may be exceptions as this is an individual situation though.

 

[TheLambsheadrep]

i'm not sure if pro-stock racquets actually have the technology in them.

the current technology or the technology the pros grew up with?

 

[tennisnoob3]

the current technology or the technology the pros grew up with?

what they grew up with, they definitely dont have the new stuff unless they switched to a new brand maybe.

 

[TennisMaverick]

the current technology or the technology the pros grew up with?

At this level, the racquet is no longer a tool, but an appendage. Switching to a newer tech, even if you know you will play better with it eventually, forces a player to have to get really worse in how they feel, before they can get better, for an extended period of time. It's like having the flu for three months, or a couple of root canals, with the pain of the cavity, followed by four weeks of healing, then grinding and fitting with a temporary crown, and then two weeks later, your permanent crown is installed, and your bite is now messed-up, all while during this time, you are running/chewing, constantly, for 5-6 hours per day. That is what it is like for a pro to switch racquets.

What happens if it never feels right? What happens if it tweaks your technique, and in doing so, you get injured? What happens if you have points to defend, and lose easy matches, or you just lose those points because you're practicing and not defending them? What happens if in doing so, your ranking drops, and you lose your shoe sponsor, or your clothing sponsor, or your financial sponsor?

Sound like fun? Do you want to go to work like that everyday for 2-3 months?

 

[sureshs]

The only Technology so far that I can tell, is the Youtek d3o. I can really feel the racket stiffen up for hard shots, and soften for the soft touch shots. It doesn't have a HUGE effect, but I know it's not 100% marketing BS and I think it's pretty cool haha.

You mean, for the 4 ms or less that the ball is on the strings, the impact has been transmitted to the frame and it has stiffened, and you have also "felt" it, all within the 4 ms which is likely to be well below the human reaction threshold?

Highely unlikely.

 

[tennisnoob3]

You mean, for the 4 ms or less that the ball is on the strings, the impact has been transmitted to the frame and it has stiffened, and you have also "felt" it, all within the 4 ms which is likely to be well below the human reaction threshold?

Highely unlikely.

have you seen d3o before? its truly no gimmick on its own.

if the d3o is in there in a somewhat substantial amount, you could probably feel it. multiple people say the youtek is somewhat "feel-able", but i can see how it could get into your head. i'm not saying its highly unlikely, but more substantial that most other techs.

if you haven't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grq2NzI9nNI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDeJ7rLUYU&feature=related

 

[TennisMaverick]

You mean, for the 4 ms or less that the ball is on the strings, the impact has been transmitted to the frame and it has stiffened, and you have also "felt" it, all within the 4 ms which is likely to be well below the human reaction threshold?

Highely unlikely.

I'm not a Head guy, but I remember hitting maybe 20 balls each with the old Liquid Metal Prestige and the other Prestige with the chip in it, just to evaluate a player's string bed, and I could definitely feel the difference in the stick's response depending on how hard I swung. I have never liked the Head feel, even back to the Blue and Red Heads, but I was impressed that the stick did what they said it was supposed to do. I would assume that the updated YouTek versions must be able to do the same. Just saying....

 

[tennisnoob3]

I'm not a Head guy, but I remember hitting maybe 20 balls each with the old Liquid Metal Prestige and the other Prestige with the chip in it, just to evaluate a player's string bed, and I could definitely feel the difference in the stick's response depending on how hard I swung. I have never liked the Head feel, even back to the Blue and Red Heads, but I was impressed that the stick did what they said it was supposed to do. I would assume that the updated YouTek versions must be able to do the same. Just saying....

you believe the in the chip? :roll:

 

[TennisMaverick]

you believe the in the chip? :roll:

I can only remember what I felt, somewhere back in 2000 or perhaps it was 2006, hitting with a player's stick who I was working with. He was missing the same shots, and I saw nothing wrong, so I concluded that it was the stick and/or string job--which it was. I hit with it only for 10-20 balls, but in that time, I felt what they were marketing. I didn't like it, but I remember that I felt it, none-the-less.

 

[big bang]

you believe the in the chip? :roll:

He believe in all the BS gimmicks ever made!

 

[TennisMaverick]

He believe in all the BS gimmicks ever made!

Quote: "There's no stalking in tennis"!

As I've said before, you and I have obviously no common frame of reference, and you still need an LD tutor for your coding problem, because you never seem to be able to comprehend what I write.

 

[big bang]

Quote: "There's no stalking in tennis"!

As I've said before, you and I have obviously no common frame of reference, and you still need an LD tutor for your coding problem, because you never seem to be able to comprehend what I write.

yeah cool story
Maybe the kids who just picked up tennis will believe your theories!
What if head made another "intelligense" frame, but this time with 3.0 GB processor and 1012 mb ram, that would really be something!
What do you need a frame of reference for?, compare the new low quality BS gimmick frames to any classic frame from the 80´s or 90´s. The fact is that most ppl who hit with the old classics frames agree with what Im saying here, but I guess a lot of div1, semi pro and pro players are simply not good enough to use the new gimmicks, it really makes sence.

Oh and stalking?? cant handle that some ppl actually knows their stuff and disagree with you?. The only guys I know who prefer the new fancy gimmicks are so young they never played a classic!. One of my students chamged his baboplast with PSC after hitting with mine and hes 16. He can do things with this frame that he wasnt able to with his old one.. Guess hes not good enough to use the new gimmicks either, hes only ranked #6 nationally.

If your not working as a rep (which I suspect), I feel sorry for your students, hopefully one of them got a dad who knows hes tennis and will tell you to quit the BS..

 

[TennisMaverick]

yeah cool story
Maybe the kids who just picked up tennis will believe your theories!
What if head made another "intelligense" frame, but this time with 3.0 GB processor and 1012 mb ram, that would really be something!
What do you need a frame of reference for?, compare the new low quality BS gimmick frames to any classic frame from the 80´s or 90´s. The fact is that most ppl who hit with the old classics frames agree with what Im saying here, but I guess a lot of div1, semi pro and pro players are simply not good enough to use the new gimmicks, it really makes sence.

Oh and stalking?? cant handle that some ppl actually knows their stuff and disagree with you?. The only guys I know who prefer the new fancy gimmicks are so young they never played a classic!. One of my students chamged his baboplast with PSC after hitting with mine and hes 16. He can do things with this frame that he wasnt able to with his old one.. Guess hes not good enough to use the new gimmicks either, hes only ranked #6 nationally.

If your not working as a rep (which I suspect), I feel sorry for your students, hopefully one of them got a dad who knows hes tennis and will tell you to quit the BS..

Like I said, you have a serious coding problem. But that tends to be typical in our profession. Many tennis pros become so because of ADD, dyslexia, LDs, etc., and become successful without formal educational success. So...more power to you!

 

[big bang]

Like I said, you have a serious coding problem. But that tends to be typical in our profession. Many tennis pros become so because of ADD, dyslexia, LDs, etc., and become successful without formal educational success. So...more power to you!

I know that you cant back up your claims about gimmicks, just admit it then or prove it! You needed a frame for reference, pick any classic..

 

[TennisMaverick]

I know that you cant back up your claims about gimmicks, just admit it then or prove it! You needed a frame for reference, pick any classic..

Like I said, very obvious coding issues. You need to re-read what I have previously written. Read very s-l-o-w-l-y and perhaps in parts, so that you can absorb it. Then, you can take a breath before you give yourself an aneurism. But, your investment in your Pro Staff Classic is admirable--I can only imagine what you do with it.

 

[big bang]

Like I said, very obvious coding issues. You need to re-read what I have previously written. Read very s-l-o-w-l-y and perhaps in parts, so that you can absorb it. Then, you can take a breath before you give yourself an aneurism. But, your investment in your Pro Staff Classic is admirable--I can only imagine what you "can" do with it.

I knew you would back out, you talk and talk but you are not up for a challenge!. I know your type, all mouth but no b....!
I fixed you post, so now you can keep dreaming about it

 

[TennisMaverick]

I knew you would back out, you talk and talk but you are not up for a challenge!. I know your type, all mouth but no b....!
I fixed you post, so now you can keep dreaming about it

Dude...I can't help you if you can't read!

I am not going to re-write what I have written many times on many threads. You're lazy. If you wish to STALK me, then do your research.

And there is most definitely a lack of a common frame of reference, for if there weren't, you wouldn't have the need for chomping on aspirin just to keep your head from exploding over an obvious simple equation.

Now enough time wasted discussing a lack of reading comprehension skills. Time for the game.

 

[big bang]

Dude...I can't help you if you can't read!

I am not going to re-write what I have written many times on many threads. You're lazy. If you wish to STALK me, then do your research.

And there is most definitely a lack of a common frame of reference, for if there weren't, you wouldn't have the need for chomping on aspirin just to keep your head from exploding over an obvious simple equation.

Now enough time wasted discussing a lack of reading comprehension skills. Time for the game.

How many times you wanna hear it??, just pick a frame, all the old classics beats anything made today by miles!.

 

[John_Doe]

At this level, the racquet is no longer a tool, but an appendage. Switching to a newer tech, even if you know you will play better with it eventually, forces a player to have to get really worse in how they feel, before they can get better, for an extended period of time. It's like having the flu for three months, or a couple of root canals, with the pain of the cavity, followed by four weeks of healing, then grinding and fitting with a temporary crown, and then two weeks later, your permanent crown is installed, and your bite is now messed-up, all while during this time, you are running/chewing, constantly, for 5-6 hours per day. That is what it is like for a pro to switch racquets.

Athletes in other sports are willing to take two temporary steps back in order to take three steps forward, so I don't understand why tennis players would be any different. If a player found something that will potentially improve his game in the long run, I'm inclined to believe that he will probably try it.

 

[big bang]

Athletes in other sports are willing to take two temporary steps back in order to take three steps forward, so I don't understand why tennis players would be any different. If a player found something that will potentially improve his game in the long run, I'm inclined to believe that he will probably try it.

Exactly! If the new frames were superior to the old, everyone would use them!. The pros are not ******** you know
I know guys around 55-60 who will take a woodie over anything made today.
I used to be sposored by Wilson and worked at a pro shop, I got lots of different frames from the shop and reps who wanted me to promote their brand. When the old-timers at my club need to replace their 20-30 old frames, they come to me and ask to test a bunch of frames. The funny thing is that after 1 min of hitting with the "latest and greatest", they shake their head and say they are impossible to use. When they pick up the classics like POG, PSC, PT630, old prestiges or PS85 they start smiling again. Only problem is that I dont plan on selling most of these..
From the frames made in 2009-2011, the only decent ones IMO is PB10, Ozone tour and YTPP (TGK238.5 without gimmicks plays much better though). KBT is ok too but it lacks something. Would I consider to replace my old frames with one of these, NOT in this lifetime!

 

[tom4ny]

How many times you wanna hear it??, just pick a frame, all the old classics beats anything made today by miles!.

not trying to noodge but want to offer my opinion. everyone has their opinions and preferences but these are not facts. facts are always true for everyone no matter what and the idea that all the old classics are so much better than today does not hold true given the amount of babolats on the pro tour and junior ranks. babolat frames are not even old enough to be classics and they seem to be the dominant frame these days.

the modern game also seems to dictate to lighter, stiffer frame at 98/100 sq. inch. balls are faster and hit with semi western forehands.

now there are always exceptions out there like this guy named roger but look at what most juniors are wielding.

certainly stay with your classic frame and classic strokes if it works for you and brings you joy. you can certainly have fun and compete with them. however, i felt that i had to modernize my equipment and game in order to compete at a higher level and keep up with younger/faster players. but that is me and this is just my opinion.

 

[TennisMaverick]

Athletes in other sports are willing to take two temporary steps back in order to take three steps forward, so I don't understand why tennis players would be any different. If a player found something that will potentially improve his game in the long run, I'm inclined to believe that he will probably try it.

Tennis players are very traditional; very stubborn; in-particular, tend to be very tied into being emotionally comfortable; and aren't accustomed to having to overcome adversity. It is an inbred club of predominately well-to-do people, whose standards of living are such that there is little need or want for anything. So little issues become extremely magnified. Become a volunteer at an event and in 10 minutes, you will begin to dislike most players, parents, and their entourage.

For example, it's almost impossible to buy a highly ranked junior a birthday or Xmas gift, when they already have credit cards, iPads, iPods, iPhones, etc., all since they were very young, if the product was available, and convertible BMW's the day they turn 17 and get their license. Since they only compete against other individuals like themselves, they just play; they don't have to overcome any obstacles, and, they don't have to play. At anytime, they can easily say, "I'm just going to start hanging with my friends, I can't deal with this anymore," and that comes from even top nationally or ITF ranked kids. When they turn pro, they still have the same mentality. "I'm working too hard and not getting the rewards. I can work for my father's buddy and make six-figures my first year."

The traveling, winning a little, losing a lot--which they didn't do as juniors, training, getting hurt, pressure to defend points, no girlfriend, etc., easily gets too much for many of these guys. That is why non-American players rule in ITF junior events and our pros have difficulty getting to the Final Eight of GS events. It is no surprise that over the past 35 years, all of our best players were either immigrants or born from immigrants--Sampras, Chang, Capriati, Agassi, the Mayer bros, Vitas, Seles, MaryJoe--or they were from working or middle class families--Serena/Venus, Connors, Chrissie, Blake, just to name a few. There are a few exceptions, such as Roddick, but his family will tell you that his ADD made him laser focused-in on tennis and incapable of sitting behind a school desk.

Bottom Line: Most players are too privileged; they don't have to put themselves through all of the uncomfortable crap. There is a low pain threshold. They expect only to train and to win. Period. Hardship and emotional stress isn't supposed to be in the picture; most can't take it. If you yell at a tennis player as a coach, like they do in other sports, you'll be out of a job. Tennis isn't boxing, football, basketball, or baseball, where many of these pros would be in jail or working in a Wal-Mart if it wasn't for them being a pro athlete. That's a very different type of desire and emotional make-up. If USTA Player Development wants to really develop players, they should deprive the kids of everything and make them make do, but our current culture of helicopter parents and coaches who don't want to lose a penny, will not hear of it.

 

[big bang]

not trying to noodge but want to offer my opinion. everyone has their opinions and preferences but these are not facts. facts are always true for everyone no matter what and the idea that all the old classics are so much better than today does not hold true given the amount of babolats on the pro tour and junior ranks. babolat frames are not even old enough to be classics and they seem to be the dominant frame these days.

the modern game also seems to dictate to lighter, stiffer frame at 98/100 sq. inch. balls are faster and hit with semi western forehands.

now there are always exceptions out there like this guy named roger but look at what most juniors are wielding.

certainly stay with your classic frame and classic strokes if it works for you and brings you joy. you can certainly have fun and compete with them. however, i felt that i had to modernize my equipment and game in order to compete at a higher level and keep up with younger/faster players. but that is me and this is just my opinion.

I respect your oppinion, and yes Babolat is very popular amoung the juniors and some pros. I understand that if you grew up using these frames, then they will suit your game. IMO Babolat is more about aggresive marketing than making top quality frames, the hollow feel and lack of control is just horrible for my game.
My response was to TennisMaverick who claimed that most players are not good enough to use the new gimmicks. I think everyone besides him will agree that its easier to use a 100" tweener than a 90" classic players frame. In my area you will only find juniors and recreational players with Babolat, everyone else is using heavy 90"-95" frames. IMO it takes more skill to use the classic frames, but when you have used them your whole life its difficult to change..
Did you change to the frame in your sig?.

 

[Hewex]

It is likely that our children will have this same conversation 20 years from now when they talk about their "classic" Babolats vs. the new technology in 2031...

 

[TennisMaverick]

My response was to TennisMaverick who claimed that most players are not good enough to use the new gimmicks.

Dude...are you really that Charlie Brown? How the heck do you derive that idea from what I have written, or ever written, anywhere, or anytime?

All I can say is "WOW"; just....."WOW". You have my sympathy. If you're Christian, I hope that God loves you.

There really is no common frame of reference.

WOW!